Identification of the putative aggregation pheromone components emitted by the European earwig, Forficula auricularia

Chemoecology ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 173-186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen R. Quarrell ◽  
Noel W. Davies ◽  
Paul W. Walker ◽  
Ross Corkrey ◽  
Jason A. Smith ◽  
...  
2008 ◽  
Vol 140 (6) ◽  
pp. 674-681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gagandeep Hehar ◽  
Regine Gries ◽  
Gerhard Gries

AbstractAggregation of the European earwig, Forficula auricularia L. (Dermaptera: Forficulidae), is known to be, in part, a response to aggregation pheromone. However, many aspects of pheromone biology remain unknown or controversial. In two-choice experiments with field-collected specimens in a still-air olfactometer, we determined that female, male, and juvenile F. auricularia all produce and respond to aggregation pheromone and that the pheromone is perceived by means of olfaction. Various sources (or extracts thereof) reportedly containing or emitting pheromone (including the insects’ integument, tibiae, or fecal excreta) did not induce significant responses. Our data suggest that none of these sources contains all or any of the essential pheromone components. These controversial results may be due to differences in (i) experimental procedures, such as single- or grouped-insect bioassays, or (ii) developmental stages of the bioassay insects. It is conceivable that juveniles and adults produce and respond to different components of aggregation pheromone.


Evolution ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 260 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thierry Wirth ◽  
Rene Le Guellec ◽  
Michel Vancassel ◽  
Michel Veuille

1965 ◽  
Vol 97 (10) ◽  
pp. 1075-1076 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray F. Morris

In a test at St. John's from 20 August to 9 September 1964, grooved-board traps captured more specimens of the Eluropean earwig, Forficula auricularia L., than pitfall traps containing attractants. On 19 August two replicates of one grooved-board and eight Legner traps (Fig. 1) containing bran flakes plus an attractant were set up on a city lot. The Legner traps were set in the soil so that their tops were level with the surface. They were protected from rain by a 12 in. × 12 in. board held in position over the opening by short legs at the four corners. The attractants used were: peanut butter, cod oil, sugar, molasses, honey and macerated earwigs. The traps were attended from 21 August to 9 September and all earwigs removed daily and counted in the laboratory.


2001 ◽  
Vol 133 (5) ◽  
pp. 705-708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ghislain Berleur ◽  
Jean Gingras ◽  
Jean-Claude Tourneur

In North America, the life cycle of the European earwig (Forficula auricularia L.) can be divided into a nesting phase (hypogean phase) and a free-foraging phase (epigean phase) (Crumb et al. 1941; Behura 1956; Lamb and Wellington 1975). Adults spend the nesting phase in the soil; females burrow into the ground at the onset of the cold weather, lay eggs, and then care for the eggs. Hatching occurs in spring; first- or second-instar nymphs move to the soil surface for the free-foraging period. The earwig, a nocturnal insect, spends the entire daylight period of hiding under trash or in dark crevices. Where two broods occur, females reenter the ground a second time (Lamb and Wellington 1975). Stomach content analyses (Crumb et al. 1941; Sunderland and Vickerman 1980) and food preference tests (McLeod and Chant 1952; Buxton and Madge 1976) revealed that the European earwig is omnivorous. Under laboratory conditions, nymphs fed freshly frozen aphids, Rhopalosiphum padi (L.) (Hemiptera: Aphididae), survive better than those fed green algae or carrots, develop faster, and produce heavier females (Phillips 1981; Carrillo 1985).


2018 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 134-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew P Hill ◽  
Matthew Binns ◽  
Paul A Umina ◽  
Ary A Hoffmann ◽  
Sarina Macfadyen

2020 ◽  
Vol 113 (5) ◽  
pp. 2335-2342
Author(s):  
Bodil N Cass ◽  
Lindsey M Hack ◽  
Tobias G Mueller ◽  
Darian Buckman ◽  
Elizabeth E Grafton-Cardwell ◽  
...  

Abstract Integrated pest management (IPM) guidelines for horticulture are typically established from years of experimental research and experience for a crop species. Ecoinformatics methods can help to quickly adapt these guidelines following major changes in growing practices. Citrus production in California is facing several major challenges, one of which is a shift away from sweet oranges [Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck Sapindales: Rutaceae] toward mandarins (including mostly cultivars of C. reticulata Blanco and C. clementina hort. ex Tanaka). In the absence of IPM guidelines for mandarins, growers are relying on pest information developed from oranges. We mined a database of management records from commercial growers and consultants to determine densities for four arthropod pests: cottony cushion scale (Icerya purchasi Maskell Hemiptera: Monophlebidae), citricola scale (Coccus pseudomagnoliarum Kuwana Hemiptera: Coccidae), European earwig (Forficula auricularia Linnaeus Dermaptera: Forficulidae), citrus red mite (Panonychus citri McGregor Acari: Tetranychidae), and a natural enemy, predatory mites in the genus Euseius (Congdon Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Densities of cottony cushion scale were approximately 10–40 times higher in the two most commonly grown mandarin species than in sweet oranges, suggesting this pest is reaching outbreak levels more often on mandarins. Densities of the other pests and predatory mites did not differ significantly across citrus species. This is a first step toward establishing IPM guidelines for mandarins for these pests; more research is needed to determine how arthropod densities relate to crop performance in mandarins.


2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. Byers

Previous studies and data presented here suggest that odors from healthy host Scotch pine (Pinus sylvestris) and nonhost Norway spruce (Picea abies), as well as major monoterpenes of these trees at natural release rates, significantly reduce the attraction of flying bark beetles,Pityogenes bidentatus, of both sexes to their aggregation pheromone components grandisol andcis-verbenol in the field, as tested by slow rotation of trap pairs. In contrast,P. bidentatusmales and females walking in an open-arena olfactometer in the laboratory did not avoid monoterpene vapors at release rates spanning several orders of magnitude in combination with aggregation pheromone. The bark beetle may avoid monoterpenes when flying as a mechanism for avoiding nonhost species, vigorous and thus unsuitable host trees, as well as harmful resinous areas of hosts. Inhibition of this flight avoidance response in beetles after landing would allow them to initiate, or to find and enter, gallery holes with high monoterpene vapor concentrations in order to feed and reproduce.


2014 ◽  
Vol 89 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Presswell ◽  
S. Evans ◽  
R. Poulin ◽  
F. Jorge

AbstractParasitic nematodes of the family Mermithidae were found to be infecting the introduced European earwig Forficula auricularia (Dermaptera: Forficulidae) in Dunedin, South Island, New Zealand. Adult females were later collected from various garden plants while depositing eggs. These mermithid specimens were identified morphologically as Mermis nigrescens Dujardin, 1842. A genetic distance of 0.7% between these specimens and a M. nigrescens isolate from Canada (18S rRNA gene), suggests that they have diverged genetically, but there are currently no available comparable sequences for the European M. nigrescens. Two additional nuclear fragments were also amplified, the 28S rRNA and the ribosomal DNA first internal transcribed spacer (ITS1), providing a basis for future studies. Bearing in mind the morphological similarity with other reported M. nigrescens and the lack of sequence data from other parts of the world, we retain the name M.nigrescens, and suggest that the species may be found to represent a complex of cryptic species when more worldwide data are available. Herein, we present a brief description of the post-parasitic worms and adult females, along with an inferred phylogeny using 18S rRNA gene sequences.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document